<<
> It's great you're discussing Hebrews--in two different courses I have
taken
> Heb. 1:1-3:1 (in English) and provided different headings and slightly

> different paragraph divisions. The effect is like a shift in a
kaleidascope.
> The mainline material of each version is different. In both clases,
everyone
> does a double-take. Both versions are entirely convincing because of
the
> power of the headings and the paragraph breaks. Then, we look at the
formal
> evidence in the Greek, and see which version has more suppport.

Cindy: Can you give some details re: this - e.g., a listing/comparison
of how the two courses differed verse-by-verse or paragraph-by-paragraph
in their renderings of Hebrews 1:1-3:1, so we can see exactly what you
saw? Thanks! >>

Eric,

Sorry, I got bogged down in answering.

Let me give a brief outline at least of two approaches to Hebrews 1:1-2:4.
In class, I actually handed out text with headings, paragraphs & the text
that would be mainline material in bold, which I could try to send you if you
are interested. But I think that it would be just as interesting to trace
the arguments through without being led further.

#1
Hebrews 1:1-2:4
Don't Revert to Judaism

I. The Son is superior to the prophets (1:1-3)
II. The Son is superior to the angels (1:4-13)
III. Warning to pay attention (2:1-4)

#2
Hebrews 1:1-24
Let's Hang on to Our Confession

I. God's ultimate messenger is Jesus (1:1-4)
II. Compare how God spoke to Jesus with how he spoke to (about) angels
(1:5-13)
III. Conclusion: Let's pay attention to what Jesus said (2:1-4)

Actually, the same sort of study was done twice. Once, I divided the class
in half and gave each different versions (up through 3:1) and more recently,
I gave both versions to the entire group (1:1-2:4).

We used the NIV text, and I only made a couple of adjustments--such as the
position of the connective phrase DIA TOUTO in 2:1--for the second version (I
placed it as the point of departure, as it is in the Greek text, but the NIV
places it much later in the sentence). I also followed a small but
significant group of scholars in the first version that placed the break
after 1:3 because they based their structure on topic and the flow of thought.

All agreed that the basic ideas in each version were in the text, but the
question was: which version better represented the prominent/mainline
material? In each version, the mainline and support material was turned
around.

The major considerations were issues such as (1) which version best
represented the lexical/grammatical evidence, (2) which version better
accounted for the material (mainline material ought to account for the
support material); and (3) which version was most coherent (this is something
like our topic/off-topic discussion).